We're using a different filter name than "app". It would not be a good thing to remove support for this, potentially lots of bad press for T5. It's very important that any upgrade from 5.1 to 5.x can be done in minutes or hours, without frustration. I even found the upgrade from 5.0.18 to 5.1.0.5 to be semi-frustrating, due to some encoder issues.
I too like Josh's suggestion, I was thinking the same thing. I don't see why it's more complicated for the user. If both AppModule and <FilterName>Module is missing, just report the error "AppModule is missing". Backwards compatible and quite clear. On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Ulrich Stärk <u...@spielviel.de> wrote: > I agree and I favor Josh's suggestion. I don't agree with Howard that it's > making things more complicated. Just in code but that's none of the users' > business. We could just have this fallback but only document the new > behaviour. > > Uli > > > On 11.03.2010 08:17, Igor Drobiazko wrote: > >> A fixed name like "AppModule" would have been a much better decision but >> it >> is just too late. We should *never* deprecate or remove any of the naming >> conventions. There are a lot of online articles and few books on T5 >> describing the convention. Just imagine a frustration of someone who just >> read an old online article, followed the convention (Filter name + Module) >> and is wondering why his module is not located. Oh, the Tapestry guys >> changed the convention in version 5.x. Very frustrating. Tapestry has been >> criticized of breaking the backward compatibility. There so much apps out >> there that use other name than AppModule. >> >> In contrast we are introducing interfaces ServiceDef2, ContributionDef2 to >> keep the compatibility with apps build with older T5 versions. IMHO >> changed >> naming conventions are much harder to debug then changed interfaces. >> >> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Howard Lewis Ship<hls...@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> Seems like we keep hitting the error where people change web.xml, >>> rename their filter, and are confused that their AppModule is no >>> longer loaded. >>> >>> I think the way that T5 locates the module class from the filter name >>> is over-engineered. >>> >>> I think it should just be fixed as "AppModule", in the services >>> package, end of story. >>> >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> -- >>> Howard M. Lewis Ship >>> >>> Creator of Apache Tapestry >>> >>> The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to >>> learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast! >>> >>> (971) 678-5210 >>> http://howardlewisship.com >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org >>> >>> >>> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
